www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Demotion of Cardinal Burke and implications

If they understood our teaching on marriage, I think they would be surprised. For instance, all of them believe that our "second marriage" is not a sacrament, but merely a licence to have sex or something. But it is a sacrament for us, this is very clear in the rite and in the theology. At the same time, we believe that marriage is not broken by death, unlike the West. No RC mind can grapple with that: the indissolubility of marriage even by death and the sacramentality of second unions.

From the point of view of the traditionalist Latin critiques of Orthodox marital sacramental theology, particularly as the Orthodox position has been framed by Cardinal Kasper (who still manages to get incorrect the view of second marriages held by the Orthodox), the attacks on the Eastern understanding of 'ekonomia' have been fierce. Whether rightly or wrongly, Cardinal Burke has been squarely thrust into the 'anti' camp as evidenced by a number of his recent writings and his essay in the upcoming book which precipitated our current discussion.

I do respect the Cardinal's concerns for the what he perceives as the gradual degradation of liturgical tradition in the west and his affection for Orthodox liturgical praxis. Likewise, his writings on the spiritual journey we are all attempting to follow are enlightened.

However, as I suspect Alex will concur, he, like many western scholars (and that the Cardinal is for certain) like to look eastward only to pick and choose that about the east which appeals to their own point of view.

As a friend of mine put it in an exchange late last night with me on this subject:

" Neither (the Catholic 'tradionalists' nor the 'liberals') really understand (Orthodox) teaching, they read what they see in the light of their own beliefs and come to two different conclusions. The liberals would like to co-opt our teaching, bastardised as they may present it, in order to cloak it with our legitimacy. The conservatives, on the other hand, are only too happy to react to that and thump their chests about how they're the true Church. These are the people who say that we caved on birth control because we have no Pope to keep us in line.

If they understood our teaching on marriage, I think they would be surprised. For instance, all of them believe that our "second marriage" is not a sacrament, but merely a licence to have sex or something. But it is a sacrament for us, this is very clear in the rite and in the theology. At the same time, we believe that marriage is not broken by death, unlike the West. No RC mind can grapple with that: the indissolubility of marriage even by death and the sacramentality of second unions. It is at once ultra-conservative and high-as-a-kite liberal for them. But there it is. If they understood our teachings, they would never look to us to help them in this unless they were willing to totally redefine the basics".

I think he points out our folly - mine included - in trying to pigeon hole any one theologian, writer, prelate or thinker - east or west - into our own bias and perceptions.

So, I think enough has been said here on the Cardinal. He is a relatively young man, with a brilliant mind and he has much to offer the Christian world for so long as God grants him the strength and ability to do so.

I wish him the best in whatever the Holy Father sees best for him.

That's new to me! Where can I read further about this? How does one reconcile that statement with what the Lord said when asked about the woman who married the seven brothers.

Even Orthodox Answers doesn't agree. [orthodoxanswers.org]

Well, it seems to me that Latin Catholics get around this by having their cake and eating it too via a very loose system of marriage annulments, even when children are involved.

Well, it seems to me that Latin Catholics get around this by having their cake and eating it too via a very loose system of marriage annulments, even when children are involved.

Sorry, Amigo, I just can't stomach that. And for Latin Catholics to then turn around and say something to the Orthodox on the same matter . . .

Excuse me, I have to get up and walk around . . .

Alex

As my canon law professor would say, "Consent makes the marriage". No consent, no marriage.
It's not the number of children that makes a marriage a sacrament.
I am not saying that the annulment process is perfect. I am just saying what is being taught.

From the point of view of the traditionalist Latin critiques of Orthodox marital sacramental theology, particularly as the Orthodox position has been framed by Cardinal Kasper (who still manages to get incorrect the view of second marriages held by the Orthodox), the attacks on the Eastern understanding of 'ekonomia' have been fierce. Whether rightly or wrongly, Cardinal Burke has been squarely thrust into the 'anti' camp as evidenced by a number of his recent writings and his essay in the upcoming book which precipitated our current discussion.

I do respect the Cardinal's concerns for the what he perceives as the gradual degradation of liturgical tradition in the west and his affection for Orthodox liturgical praxis. Likewise, his writings on the spiritual journey we are all attempting to follow are enlightened.

However, as I suspect Alex will concur, he, like many western scholars (and that the Cardinal is for certain) like to look eastward only to pick and choose that about the east which appeals to their own point of view.

As a friend of mine put it in an exchange late last night with me on this subject:

" Neither (the Catholic 'tradionalists' nor the 'liberals') really understand (Orthodox) teaching, they read what they see in the light of their own beliefs and come to two different conclusions. The liberals would like to co-opt our teaching, bastardised as they may present it, in order to cloak it with our legitimacy. The conservatives, on the other hand, are only too happy to react to that and thump their chests about how they're the true Church. These are the people who say that we caved on birth control because we have no Pope to keep us in line.

If they understood our teaching on marriage, I think they would be surprised. For instance, all of them believe that our "second marriage" is not a sacrament, but merely a licence to have sex or something. But it is a sacrament for us, this is very clear in the rite and in the theology. At the same time, we believe that marriage is not broken by death, unlike the West. No RC mind can grapple with that: the indissolubility of marriage even by death and the sacramentality of second unions. It is at once ultra-conservative and high-as-a-kite liberal for them. But there it is. If they understood our teachings, they would never look to us to help them in this unless they were willing to totally redefine the basics".

I think he points out our folly - mine included - in trying to pigeon hole any one theologian, writer, prelate or thinker - east or west - into our own bias and perceptions.

So, I think enough has been said here on the Cardinal. He is a relatively young man, with a brilliant mind and he has much to offer the Christian world for so long as God grants him the strength and ability to do so.

I wish him the best in whatever the Holy Father sees best for him.

It is the sophistry used to try and prove inability to consent years and children after the fact that bothers many.

In my Ruthenian parish, we'd readily state that the couple does not confect the sacrament themselves, but that the sacrament is conveyed by the priest (as in Orthodoxy). Yet simultaneously we'll say that there's nothing wrong with the Latin formulation which definitively states the spouses-to-be are the ministers of the sacrament, not the priest.

1623 According to Latin tradition, the spouses as ministers of Christ's grace mutually confer upon each other the sacrament of Matrimony by expressing their consent before the Church. In the tradition of the Eastern Churches, the priests (bishops or presbyters) are witnesses to the mutual consent given by the spouses,124 but for the validity of the sacrament their blessing is also necessary.125

That said, we wouldn't say that marriage is a contractual bond. But we'd also say that the Latin Church might say that it is, not that there's anything wrong with that. Then again, what is taught also varies depending on the background and persuasion of the cleric in question. We'll hear Orthodoxy from some, Latin theology from others.

In my Ruthenian parish, we'd readily state that the couple does not confect the sacrament themselves, but that the sacrament is conveyed by the priest (as in Orthodoxy). Yet simultaneously we'll say that there's nothing wrong with the Latin formulation which definitively states the spouses-to-be are the ministers of the sacrament, not the priest.

That said, we wouldn't say that marriage is a contractual bond. But we'd also say that the Latin Church might say that it is, not that there's anything wrong with that. Then again, what is taught also varies depending on the background and persuasion of the cleric in question. We'll hear Orthodoxy from some, Latin theology from others.

Hence the difficulty of the Eastern Catholic position... Which one is it?

Thank you, GX, that's a good link.

At the same time, though, I don't want to make more of it than is actually there: the thrust of his speech could be paraphrased "Let me praise the Orthodox for the ways that they are like me."

Then it follows that "res ipsa loquitur"would seem to lead one to deduce that the theology of the west trumps that of the east in the Eastern Catholic sacramental theology of marriage.